Subject: File: "FEMINISTSF LOG9805A" ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 16:54:02 +1000 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Julieanne Subject: Re: gender difference In-Reply-To: <3.0.2.32.19980501002109.0073bd1c@haverford.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >Some wars are games. But true war is no game. Would you have called the >Holocaust a game? I'm against war. But in our society sometimes its >necessary. Were everyone as enlightened as we, it wouldn't be. IMHO though, >women don't belong at the front lines. They should be the Home Guard, >protectors, not attackers. >> >> >>I've always thought that I could never engage in combat because it's too >>bloody, inhumanly horrible, and stupid. I thought my fear of combat >>conditions was because I was a woman. Maybe it's just because I'm a >>coward! What a thought! If you threaten my children, I'll be in your >>face. But the kind of stuff Xena does, for example, seems totally >>unnatural for a woman. Maybe it's just unnatural for people who prefer >>their skin unpuctured and their heads on their necks. > >Nah. I know women who could do it. And would. >* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Sometimes I think of real war-games, as a kind of natural population-control mechanism. The male is more "expendable" from a population group point of view, than the female - so if someone has to "die for the community" - then it is biologically preferable for it to be males. At various points throughout history, women have been in the front lines, alongside men - or in separate battalions etc - I suspect though, that this was either desperate need ( until recent times, warfare often depended on sheer *numbers* of front-line "expendable" fodder)...or an excess population where it could be considered OK to get rid of some women from the breeding population as well as a majority of males. I was reading recently about some isolated New Guinea cultures which regularly hold bloody battles between neighbouring clans and communities of young adolescent men, in which a substantial minority of their men are killed - and the people readily admit that this is one of the reasons it is performed ... a "culling" mechanism for "excess" males. Most of the men come back...but some will not. Another reason, is that they believe that all adolescents of both genders need to face an extreme emotional crisis in order to become adults. For women it is facing their first experience of childbirth, where they must face the pain, the possibility of their own death or the death of their infant etc. For men it is facing the possibility of their death at the hands of another man in battle... As for women and their ability to kill - there is also the "dark, secret side of motherhood"... traditionally women are seen as the 'last line of defence', or will only raise arms in defence of their children. This is a comforting myth I suspect - one that both men and women prefer - the all-embracing, all-loving Mother figure - who is as real, as the All-Loving Father God, who alone decides who will live, and who will die. but women have killed their own children far more often than we like to admit - and like the men who kill in battle - these mothers have killed for the "common good" - An extract from "Sex and Destiny" - in a chapter titled _Abortion and Infanticide_ : ^ÓThe point of the historical fact (of abortion, infanticide) is clear; women would risk death rather than bear an unwanted child. Sentimentalised notions of motherhood have blurred the real nature of the maternal function as it has been carried out since prehistory. In reality motherhood is a bloody business, from the first menstruations through pregnancies, births, miscarriages.....deaths of mothers themselves. Besides the virtues of tenderness, patience, self-forgetfulness, a mother had to exercise courage, determination and decisiveness. It was not only her duty to bring children into the world in service of her people, but her duty to see that the number of children remained in the right balance with the adult population and the potential food supply. The lesson is clear, if you will not feed them, do not condemn them to life.........^Ô "Thus women in many cultures regard their men as children, who sit all day smoking and discussing morality and politics with their friends, arguing the pros and cons of abortion possibly, while a hundred yards away in the women's souk, a dozen abortifacients can be bought.......And if those same men cannot find the money....for food (etc)...for the children which are the proof of their manhood, it is the women who will conduct them (the children) as gently as possible, out of the world into which they should never have come." Julieanne ppp98@cs.net.au ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 17:43:35 -0900 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Karen Chan Subject: Definitions and other constructs Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 1st May, 1998. 4:25 p.m. Hi everyone, I've been lurking here for about a week and have been finding the discussion very interesting. I joined up because I have to do a presentation on feminist sci-fi/fantasy, I found Laura Quilter's page thingummy and got interested. My problem is definitions. I've been struggling with trying to distinguish science fiction from fantasy and what I've come up with is that science fiction is the literature of ideas and fantasy is the literature of imagination, and the two cross-pollinate all the time. Then I struggle to define what feminist sci-fi is, and from what I have read, I think it's literature that seeks to question gender roles and present alternatives. I don't know if all that is valid. I would like to know what you all think. Below I have included a list of quotes from all the stuff I have been reading. I do admit that it is very limited - my university library isn't very good: --- ON SCIENCE FICTION: "Not, however, in science fiction. There alone we find the search for the purposer is still alive. Indeed, in story after story the question arises and is explored at depths that would be impossible in any other genre - even fantasy. For while fantasy is uniquely suited to dealing with human universals - the mythic - science fiction is uniquely suited to dealing with suprahuman universals - the metaphysical. Fantasy can hardly deal seriously with gods, because gods are common motifs, like magic swords and unicorns. Readers aren't expected to believe in them.... But because science fiction specifically excludes supernatural gods as characters in stories, it is possible for science fiction to explore the purpose of life deeply and thoroughly without being distracted by existing theologies." Orson Scott Card, "Maps in a Mirror Vol. 2: Cruel Miracles", pp. 336-337. - "^Åscience fiction is the one lasting American contribution to prose literature. In every other area, we're derivative to the - well, not to the core, because in those areas we have no core. Nobody in other countries aspires to write Westerns, and nobody in Russia or Germany or Japan looks to Updike or Bellow to teach them how to write 'serious' fiction. They already have literary traditions older and better than our so-called best. But in science fiction they all look to us. They want to write science fiction, too, because those who read it in every nation see it as the fiction of possibility, the fiction of strangeness. It's the one genre now that allows the writer to do satire that isn't recognised as satire, to do metaphysical fiction that isn't seen as philosophical or religious proselytizing. In sort, it is the freest, most open literature in the world today, and it is the one literature that foreign writers are learning first and foremost from Americans." Orson Scott Card, "Flux", p. 268. - "Science fiction is the romance of the machine. Fantasy is the romance of the soul." (C.J. Cherryh) Tom Staicar, ed., The Feminine Eye: Science Fiction and the Women Who Write it, Frederick Ungar Publishing Co., New York, USA, 1982, p. 15. - "The job of science fiction authors is a difficult one, for the very nature of this genre forces them to unite the power that lies in scientific truth with the emotional wisdom that abides in a fictional vision." Ibid, p. 59. - "Darko Suvin calls science fiction the literature of cognitive estrangement." Marleen S. Barr, Lost in Space: Probing Feminist Science Fiction and Beyond, University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill and London, 1993, p. 4. --- ON FEMINIST SCIENCE FICTION/FANTASY: "I think one of the greatest tellers of Story who has ever lived is Kipling, despite his political failings. But the point for me, who as a child read a lot of stories where only guys ever had adventures while the women stayed at home, I wondered about all the 'little brown people' and maybe if they felt about the roles they were relegated to at all the way I felt about mine as a girrrl. Damar is trying to turn those tables a bit." Robin McKinley, Letter to Damien R. Sullivan, http://ofb.net/~damien/mckinley/letter2.html - "Science fiction has lured a number of new writers from the feminist movement partly because only SF permits unlimited freedom in the settings and situations of feminist fiction. Mainstream novels restrict their writers either to a historical setting where sex roles are already established, or to contemporary settings where potential future sex roles do not exist except for isolated individuals. Only science fiction allows the freedom to create a "laboratory" world where one can experiment with matriarchal societies that dominate entire nations, group marriage, radical approaches to child rearing, and other feminist speculations about alternatives to existing sex roles and living arrangements." Tom Staicar, ed., The Feminine Eye: Science Fiction and the Women Who Write it, Frederick Ungar Publishing Co., New York, USA, 1982, p. vii. - "Feminist science fiction, then, acts as a microscope in relation to patriarchal myths. In this volume, I read feminist science fiction as fiction that enlarges patriarchal myths in order to facilitate scrutinizing these myths." Marleen S. Barr, Lost in Space: Probing Feminist Science Fiction and Beyond, University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill and London, 1993, p. 4. - "Feminist science fiction is the key for unlocking patriarch's often hidden agendas; the treasure is a woman's ability to use feminist reading positions as a means to live as freely as possible." Ibid, p. 4. - "Feminist science fiction presents blueprints for social structures that allow women's words to counter patriarchal myths." Ibid, p. 7. - "Science fiction's new feminist chapter expresses a longing for a richer plurality of human images by portraying women as gendered or racial aliens who embrace, rather than quell, the invading monster." Ibid, p. 99. - "...sf/f offers unparalleled opportunities for feminists to explore societal configurations other than the patriarchal societies we all know and love (!). "Only sf and fantasy literature can show us women in entirely new or strange surroundings. It can explore what we might become if and when the present restrictions on our lives vanish, or show us new problems and restrictions that might arise. It can show us the remarkable woman as normal where past literature shows her as the exception." (from Pamela Sargent's "Women and Science Fiction", p. lx of Women of Wonder; italics hers).... "Feminist science fiction" is not a clearly-definable term. It has been used to refer to everything from utopias (eutopias and dystopias), to hard science fiction, to fantasy, to magic realism; from only fiction with a definite political agenda, to any fiction which merely includes a female character. "How does "feminism," then, translate into literature? Works that examine gender issues, works that advocate for equality, works that portray women as strong, capable, or in unusual roles - all of these might qualify as feminist. And some critique on feminist grounds might be made of almost any work, no matter how apparently feminist. If a work somehow helps us to see around and through our gender stereotypes, I would (probably) call it feminist." Laura Quilter, Whys and Wherefores (http://www.uic.edu/~lauramd/femsf/) - Sorry that was so long. Karen. ================================================================== Karen Chan kkchan@ozemail.com.au kkc02@its.uow.edu.au ICQ 2293920 (Mistic Watcher [Proofreader of Mistic Circle & PIGS Secretary] Mistic Circle: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Shadowlands/6543) "Myth must be kept alive. The people who can keep it alive are the artists of one kind or another. The function of the artist is the mythologization of the environment and the world." (Joseph Campbell) ================================================================== ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 10:59:01 +0000 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Comments: Authenticated sender is From: Anthea Subject: Re: gender difference In-Reply-To: <5269cab6.3548e082@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT On 30 Apr 98 at 16:35, Sidhe 71 wrote: > This is the trouble with ignorance about history, and with > believing one's own propaganda. You don't have to be in top > physical shape to be in a wartime army. This person is just plain > wrong, about age, and about women. When I read this statement, I am astounded at the anonymous professor's powers of deduction. Because my views (based on years of reporting for European newspapers) don't agree with his I must therefore be ignorant of history and deluded to boot. This is presumably an example of the heights to which academic debate in history has risen in the years since I completed my MA - I must be more out of touch than I thought. Or perhaps the patriarchal 'professor' felt that, since I was a mere female, a sharp put-down filled with irrelevancies would be more appropriate. Still I should be grateful - at least he didn't point out that I was obviously suffering from PMS when I wrote the posting! > Further, most of today's military personnel (army, navy, air force, > etc.) do NOT engage in combat even in wartime... I must be honest and admit that I have no idea what bearing this and the other tendentious comments have on the age/gender make-up of the soldiers who actually engage in combat. Perhaps the 'professor of history' would care to provide references showing the age/gender distribution of Roman soldiers, of sergeants engaged in combat in WWI & WWII, and of soldiers in Napoleon's 'Old Guard'. I'd be even more interested in references showing that women made up a significant proportion (say >10%) of any forces ACTUALLY ENGAGED IN COMBAT now or over the last few thousand years. To avoid futile argument, I believe that 'in combat' would necessarily require a person to carry a weapon, engage in long periods of fighting and be actually, actively engaged in trying to kill or maim the enemy. In closing I should perhaps point out that from 1989 until I injured my leg in Pakistan last year, I covered (amongst other things) wars and semi-wars for major European newspapers - initially as a stringer but finally on staff. This may account for my anger at the contemptuous dismissal of my views by a patronizing patriarch. AJ ----------------------------------------- gaudit@global.co.za ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 06:36:43 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: donna simone Subject: SF/F and War (was Gender Diff.) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Okay, I will take the plunge. And Laura I am making a concerted effort to bring this back into the FSFFU fold. The first SF book I read was Forever War - Haldeman. Published in 1975 and very much an extrapolation of Vietnam consciousness into speculative fiction. Moved into Heinlen, Pohl, Clarke, etc. (it was a class so I wasn't picking). At first I thought SF was ONLY about War. (When I later stumbled upon Russ and McIntyre etc. I realized it wasn't). And from the reality of life in the 60/70's, it seemed that as a country/race/world HUMANITY was only about war. Today, on the brink of the "new millennium", I have resolved that within SF and Fantasy war is STILL the ubiquitous given. As it is in the world. (This from having just finished Ammonite -Griffith, Black Wine -Dorsey and Dragon's Winter - Lynn) . Makes sense that our literature reflects our reality, for the world too is still about war. Today however, many writers will portray women as instruments of war in a way not seen years ago. (A stunning example is Elizabeth Moons trilogy Deed of Paksenarrion. Moon by the way is a veteran of the U.S. Marines. And of course the tribes in Ammonite) Again this reflects reality. Women ARE instruments of war. The two highest profile POW's from the (disgustingly obscene and exceedingly unnecessary IMHO) US attacks on Iraq in 90-92 were women. One a pilot who was shot down and one a member of some logistics unit (where supposedly she was "safe" from harm). The highest number of US casualties were the 20-30 men and WOMEN who were strafed by US PILOTS while sleeping in their tents in the "back lines". Women have long been portrayed as cannon fodder in SF/F fiction and now women, at least in the US, have reached the glorified status of "cannon fodder" in real life. Three cheers to us. And let me not forget to proclaim LOUDLY that that which is DONE to women in the name of war (and I will not ruin your day with examples we know they are there) is far more horrific then the tortures of bearing the weapons and striking the blows. At least a soldier has a weapon to attempt to defend himself or to take action against the enemy. What of the women and girls left "safely at home" where danger will presumably never threaten???? If I am to be left open to attack - GIVE ME THE GOD DAMN GUN. I will be able to kill. Estrogen or not. And who of our female list members would not? This too is reflected in SF/F, many titles portray women rising to aggressive and killing actions because of what has been visited upon them or their own in the name of war. So we can debate endlessly where we THINK women belong in the world of war, but it is fruitless. They are already there. Both in our literature and in our lives. Offered in complete humility, donna donnaneely@earthlink.net ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 10:30:39 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Debra Euler Subject: purpose of the list , Tepper Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Laura Quilter wrote: >>>this list is to discuss feminism and science fiction. yes, of course, gender differences are RELEVANT. everything is RELEVANT, sort of. but try to keep your on-list discussion related to, say, gender differences as exhibited in SCIENCE FICTION. if you want to just respond in general, then do it off-list. we have a lot of readers and it's best (for now) to be specific ... Thanks, Laura. All this discussion (which has been discussed ad nauseam on this list already) of who can fight in a war or who cannot is just boring, in my opinion. Let's discuss some SF! Who has read the "The Family Tree" by Sheri Tepper? I'm a huge Tepper fan, but I was really disappointed in this book. I found it overly preachy about its environmental message, becoming so extreme it bordered on satire, without ever overtly crossing into satire; this made the whole novel just dumb, in my opinion. Which was too bad, because I liked many of the characters and settings. Debra ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 10:28:12 EDT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: GlendaAlex Subject: Movies, angels, strong women Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Could anyone recommend some good science fiction movies? I just saw "The Fifth Element," in which the "Supreme Being" is incarnated as a woman, yet serves the same purpose as any movie bimbo: to show a lot of skin, need a lot of rescueing, and have sex with the hero. Needless to say, there have to be better films out there. Current fiction seems to be trying to bring deities and angels down to earth. I always thought one of the special traits of angels was that they weren't at the mercy of hormones, as human beings are. Think about the number of stories in which someone's choices are narrowed or their fate is determined by their choice of mate. Angels don't have the misery of loss or rejection, and while they don't experience the pleasure of sexual intercourse, there is sometimes a suggestion that they experience something better and more than momentary. Is Paradise just more of what we have right now or is it something better than anything we've ever experienced? For anyone interested in the roles of women in primitive societies, I recommend the cover story in the April issue of "Discover" magazine, "New Women of the Ice Age." Much of what we regard as history or anthropology seems to be part speculative fiction, and only part verifiable fact. This article seems to say that researchers with a more positive attitude about the strength and power of women have found evidence that pre-historic women were, guess what? Stronger and more powerful than previously believed. And their story makes a lot more sense. This is my first post on this list. How do you do? :-) Glenda ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 08:55:08 +0100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Maryelizabeth Hart Subject: Re: Joanna Russ : WHAT ARE WE FIGHTING FOR? Comments: To: donnaneely@EARTHLINK.NET Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Dear Donna: I think the biggest obstacle to discussing WAWFF as a group is not its non-fiction status, but rather it's rather hefty US$27.95 price. Even with the MG discount, it's still $23.76. However, I think perhaps we could have an informal discussion of it among those list members who do get it. Also, I think we may want to give people a while to read it -- I'm probably going to continue to read my copy in "dip" mode, rather than in a straightforward fashion, so I would think that it'll be several months before I'll be ready to discuss it. Other thoughts? Maryelizabeth Mysterious Galaxy 619-268-4747 3904 Convoy St, #107 800-811-4747 San Diego, CA 92111 619-268-4775 FAX http://www.mystgalaxy.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 08:55:13 +0100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Maryelizabeth Hart Subject: Re: random comments ... Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" The book mentioned by David Brin is actually GLORY SEASON. I believe GLORY ROAD is Heinlein. :) I would swear the first time I encountered the word "cunning" in the context of "charming," rather than "clever," was in ALICE IN WONDERLAND. Anyone have it on CD-ROM, so they can do a search by word? Thanks to Anny for her take on DREAMSNAKE. Glad she enjoyed her reread. Maryelizabeth Mysterious Galaxy 619-268-4747 3904 Convoy St, #107 800-811-4747 San Diego, CA 92111 619-268-4775 FAX http://www.mystgalaxy.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 12:50:44 +0000 Reply-To: releon@syr.edu Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Rudy Leon Organization: Syracuse University Subject: Re: Tepper In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT On 1 May 98 , Debra Euler wrote: > Who > has read the "The Family Tree" by Sheri Tepper? I'm a huge Tepper > fan, but I was really disappointed in this book. I found it overly > preachy about its environmental message, becoming so extreme it > bordered on satire, without ever overtly crossing into satire; this > made the whole novel just dumb, in my opinion. Which was too bad, > because I liked many of the characters and settings. > I haven't read it yet, although I did nominate for BDG to give me an excuse to... Your comments remind of my reactions to Gibbon's Decline. The book too obviously had a message, and the obviousness overrode my enjoyment of the story. Same thing happened to me with Tom Robbins _Skinny Legs and All_. Message is great, and if I hate a message, I'll hate a book, but I really feel that well-crafted tales tell a story which encompasses something, rather than having the message too clearly in the drivers seat. How sad; I love Tepper, and it seems we have a trend in her writings. Rudy Leon Syracuse University releon@syr.edu (315) 425-8171 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 13:07:00 EDT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Lurima Subject: Re: X-Files: Sex with angels Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 98-04-28 07:26:59 EDT, you write: << I mean, look, angels are NOT supposed to marry human folk. This is explicity explained in the bible, right? >> I believe that angels are resurrected humans. They've already been humans on Earth; now they're in a different state of existence, with more powers and abilities and knowledge than they had as mere Earthlings. But they're still themselves. If you think being an angel sounds boring, I thought so too, when I thought all they do is float around plucking harps and singing praises. That's good for 20 minutes, tops. But you continue working and growing and learning in the next life. And angels are not sexless, either. You can continue your relationships in the next life, meaning you can still have your spouse and continue to have children. This is the Mormon view; we don't hold to the built-in divorce of "till death do us part." That's why we say that families are forever. barbara ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 13:12:19 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Stahl, Sheryl" Subject: Re: Definitions and other constructs MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Apologies in advance for what may be a half-assed answer. I seem to remember that in her book _To write like a woman_ Joanna Russ had an essay on just this - she started with someone elses def. (Samual Delaney?) and discussed it in length - the def. was something like this: Fantasy cover things that cannot happen - for example there is no such thing as fairies, dwarves etc. so books about them are fantasy. Science fiction covers things that have not happened (yet) While we don't have FTL drive now - we may in the future. It was an interesting article -but I read it so long ago I can't remember too many details - I would recommend that book of essays in anycase. The quotes you found were interesting. sheryl > ---------- > From: Karen Chan[SMTP:kkchan@OZEMAIL.COM.AU] > Reply To: For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian > literature > Sent: Friday, May 01, 1998 10:43 PM > To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU > Subject: [*FSFFU*] Definitions and other constructs > > 1st May, 1998. 4:25 p.m. > > Hi everyone, I've been lurking here for about a week and have been > finding > the discussion very interesting. I joined up because I have to do a > presentation on feminist sci-fi/fantasy, I found Laura Quilter's page > thingummy and got interested. > > My problem is definitions. I've been struggling with trying to > distinguish > science fiction from fantasy and what I've come up with is that > science > fiction is the literature of ideas and fantasy is the literature of > imagination, and the two cross-pollinate all the time. Then I struggle > to > define what feminist sci-fi is, and from what I have read, I think > it's > literature that seeks to question gender roles and present > alternatives. I > don't know if all that is valid. I would like to know what you all > think. > > Below I have included a list of quotes from all the stuff I have been > reading. I do admit that it is very limited - my university library > isn't > very good: > > --- > > Karen. > > ================================================================== > Karen Chan kkchan@ozemail.com.au kkc02@its.uow.edu.au ICQ 2293920 > > (Mistic Watcher [Proofreader of Mistic Circle & PIGS Secretary] > Mistic Circle: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Shadowlands/6543) > > "Myth must be kept alive. The people who can keep it alive are the > artists of one kind or another. The function of the artist is the > mythologization of the environment and the world." > (Joseph Campbell) > > ================================================================== > ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 10:47:44 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jennifer Krauel Subject: BDG Nomination: Shadow Man MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I'd like to nominate Shadow Man, by Melissa Scott, for the group to read and discuss. List price $13.95, Paperback Published by Tor Books Publication date: December 1996 ISBN: 0312862067 Here's an except from a review I did of the book: Shadow Man has been compared to Ursula Le Guin's classic The Left Hand of Darkness; in fact, Shadow Man was nominated for the Tiptree award in 1995 and won the 1996 Lambda Award. While Scott has always flirted with gender issues in her books, this is the first time she's approached it as the main concept, and while Le Guin's shoes are awfully big to fill, I think it's a terrific attempt. In this story, people have five recognized genders as a result of a drug used to enable faster-than-light travel. The book takes place on a planet out of contact with other humans for five hundred years, a backwater place which refuses to recognize more than our current two genders, men and women. The story revolves around Warreven Stiller, a "herm" (the middle of the five genders) who is a lawyer and reluctant leader of his/her extended family. As a youth, Stiller turned down marriage into a rich and influential family because s/he was unwilling to accept the price: deny her/his true gender and act as a woman. Stiller's refusal to deny his/her sexuality and gender for her/his family's political gain brands him/her a troublemaker, and as the story unfolds s/he more and more openly challenges the system as a gender outlaw. You can read more on Scott's web page: http://www.rscs.net/~ms001/shadowm.html ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 11:04:08 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Le Anne Fossmeyer Subject: Way off topic--angels, gender, and the bible MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain I am totally bored with this thread, but I can't keep my nose out of it. Could I pretend my 2 cents are on-topic if I refer to Revelations and the Book of Mormon as SF? To the bible as fantasy/mythology? Does any of it matter since I'm bound to offend tons of people here? Barbara wrote: >And angels are not sexless, either. You can continue your relationships in the >next life, meaning you can still have your spouse and continue to have >children. This is the Mormon view; we don't hold to the built-in divorce of >"till death do us part." That's why we say that families are forever. I think that's probably a Mormon thing--the mythological(!) Jesus clearly states in the Gospel (King James version and others) that sex (gender) doesn't exist in the afterlife. As I recall, Jesus begins this by explaining that if a man dies, one of his unmarried brothers should marry the widow. Then the followers ask him what happens when the woman and brother die--who is she married to then? Jesus explains that this is irrelevant because we leave our bodies and become spirit only--male and female become one, with no distinction, no marriage. I can't recall off the top of my head which book of the Gospel this is in.... I would suspect that this passage remained through the many re-writings of the bible just as the E (or Elohim) story of creation has remained side-by-side in Genesis with the J (Jehovah) story of creation. The two myths contradict each other, but what are you going to do when so many people have memorized both stories? The Catholics tell you it's God's mystery, the Jews create the Lilith folklore, and everyone else ignores the contradiction. I don't recall any of the versions I read of the bible saying that angels are resurrected humans and I don't recall stories of any angel's human life, but I can't really say that's just a Mormon thing. I'm certainly no authority--I just read lots and lots of bibles--enough to see the curious contradictions, hypocrisies, poetry, repetitions of other myths, and the beauty of the words. That's how I became an atheist--by reading the bible. =D ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 20:15:51 GMT+100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Petra Mayerhofer Subject: BDG Nomination period closed Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT The nomination period for the book discussion group is closed now. In total 21 books were nominated (see below). An html file with further descriptions and comments on the nominated books has been produced and will be posted on a web side soon. The volunteer who coordinates the voting process (not me) will explain that procedure today or tomorrow. Please DO NOT send any votes before that time. Have a nice weekend (mine starts now). Petra Books nominated (listed is always the cheapest paperback edition currently available): Marion Zimmer Bradley: The Mists of Avalon Publisher: Del Rey; Publication Date: July 1987; List price: US-$14.00; ISBN: 0345350499 Octavia E. Butler: Wild Seed Publisher: Warner Books; Publication Date: July 1995; List price: US-$5.99; ISBN: 0445205377 Don't Bet on the Prince: Contemporary Feminist Fairy Tales in North America and England. Ed.: Jack Zipes. Publisher: Routledge; Publication Date: 1989; List price: US-$17.99; ISBN: 0415902630 Candas Jane Dorsey: Black Wine Publisher: Tor; Publication Date: January 1998; List price: US-$13.95; ISBN: 0312865783 Karen Joy Fowler: Sarah Canary Publisher: Kensington Pub Corp (Mass Market); Publication date: March 1993; List price: US-$5.99; ISBN: 0821740881 Mary Gentle: Grunts!: A Fantasy With Attitude Publisher: NAL, Publication Date: Aug 1997; List price: US-$6.99; ISBN 0451454537 Molly Gloss: The Dazzle of Day Publisher: Tor; Publication Date: April 1998; List price: US-$12.95; ISBN: 031286437X Jewelle Gomez: The Gilda Stories Publisher: Firebrand ; Publication Date: Jun 1991; List price: US-$11.95; ISBN 093237994X Ellen Kushner: Swordspoint: Melodrama of manners Publisher: Tor; Publication Date: June 1994; List price: US-$4.99; ISBN: 0812536444 Stephen Leigh: Dark Water's Embrace Publisher: Ace Books; Publication Date: March 1998; List price: US-$3.99; ISBN: 0380794780 Shariann Lewitt: Momento Mori Publisher: Tor; Publication Date: April 1997; List price: US-$14.95; ISBN: 0312862946 Robin McKinley: Deerskin Publisher: Ace Books; Publication Date: July 1994; List price: US-$5.99; ISBN: 044100069X Kristine Kathryn Rusch: Alien Influences Publisher: Bantam Spectra; Publication Date: December 1997; List price: US-$5,99, ISBN: 0553569988 UK: Publisher: Millennium Books; Publication Date: June 1995 Mary Doria Russell: The Sparrow Publisher: Fawcett Books (Ballantine Reader's Circle), Publication date: September 1997, List price: US-$12.00; ISBN: 0449912558 Melissa Scott: Shadow Man Publisher: Tor; Publication Date: December 1996; List price: US-$13.95; ISBN: 0312862067 Sharon Shinn: Archangel Publisher: Ace Books; Publication Date: April 1997; List price: US-$6.50; ISBN: 0441004326 Sheri S. Tepper: Family Tree Publisher: Eos (Mass Market); Publication date: May 1998, List price: US-$6.99, ISBN: 0380791978 Sheri S. Tepper: Gibbon's Decline and Fall Publisher: Bantam Books; Publication date: July 1997, List price: US-$6.99, ISBN: 0553573985 Sheri S. Tepper: The True Game Publisher: Ace Books; Publication date: June 1996, List price: US-$15.95, ISBN: 0441003311 James Tiptree Jr.: Brightness Falls From the Air Publisher: St Martins; Publication date: September 1993, List price: US-$9.95, ISBN: 0312854072 Joan D. Vinge: The Snow Queen Publisher: Warner Books; Publication date: 1992, List price: US-$5.99, ISBN: 0445205296 Women of Wonder : The Contemporary Years : Science Fiction by Women from the 1970s to the 1990s. Ed.: Pamela Sargent Publisher: Harvest Books; Publication date: 1995, List price: US-$15.00, ISBN: 0156000334 ** Petra Mayerhofer ** pm@ier.uni-stuttgart.de ** ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 16:01:47 EDT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Lurima Subject: Re: angels Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 98-04-28 14:13:58 EDT, you write: << these benevolent buff male critters often looking vaguely like robed Fabios with feathers, >> The feathers bit makes no sense. I imagine they originated with a medieval artist who had never seen anything fly unless it had wings, so he extrapolated. (The buff male part is all right, though!) Barbara ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 20:07:35 UT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Lesley Hall Subject: Re: random comments ... >I would swear the first time I encountered the word "cunning" in the >context of "charming," rather than "clever," was in ALICE IN >WONDERLAND. My recollection is that my first encounter with this usage was in _Little Women_ and that I did register it as different from the meaning I had already learnt. (And I must have first read LW around the same time as AiW). I don't recall the word in Alice Lesley Lesley_Hall@classic.msn.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 16:27:06 -0400 Reply-To: asaro@sff.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Catherine Asaro Subject: Re: nomination MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Does anyone know if Severna Park's =hnd of Prophesy= is available in paperback? I have a hardcover copy of it here, one of the "paperback" size hardcovers being printed by Eos. If it is available in paperback, then I would nominate it for the list. If it is only in hardcover, then how about her first book, =Speaking Dreams= instead. I have that one in paperback. Sharon Shinn's Archangel is a good one (it's already on the list). She makes some intriguing comments about sexuality in "angels," as human being regard them. Her angels aren't always so angelic! Archangel is about a male Archangel, but her next book (which I haven't read), =Jovah's Angel,= apparently has two women who, at different times, are the head Archangels. I've also heard that =Jovah's Angel= give the science fictional backing to the story. Another possibility is Shard's of Honor/Barrayar by Lois McMaster Bujold. The two books, which tell one story, are (I think) both published as one book called =Cordelia's Honor.= Best regards Catherine Asaro http://www.sff.net/people/asaro/ ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 22:10:45 +0100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Sharon Clark Subject: BDG Nominations (AGAIN) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------69B4C91A2F2E6235245C6444" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------69B4C91A2F2E6235245C6444 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I DID post BDG nominations before the 8 p.m. (Germany) deadline, but they bounced back to me--so here they are again. -Sharon Clark --------------69B4C91A2F2E6235245C6444 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline >From smrsh Fri May 1 19:16:19 1998 Received: from tudedr.et.tudelft.nl by cas.et.tudelft.nl with ESMTP (1.37.109.24/16.2) id AA247012978; Fri, 1 May 1998 19:16:18 +0200 Return-Path: Received: from mx01.globecomm.net by ITS.TUDelft.NL (PMDF V5.1-10 #21918) with ESMTP id <01IWJ3HXUXT28WZ4YB@ITS.TUDelft.NL> for remco@cas.et.tudelft.nl; Fri, 1 May 1998 19:16:16 +0200 Received: from piglet.cc.uic.edu (PIGLET.CC.UIC.EDU [128.248.100.54]) by mx01.globecomm.net (8.8.8/8.8.0) with ESMTP id NAA25127 for ; Fri, 01 May 1998 13:13:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from piglet.cc.uic.edu (PIGLET.CC.UIC.EDU [128.248.100.54]) by piglet.cc.uic.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA52584 for ; Fri, 01 May 1998 12:13:48 -0500 Date: Fri, 01 May 1998 12:13:48 -0500 From: "L-Soft list server at University of Illinois at Chicago (1.8c)" Subject: Rejected posting to FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU To: ouch@SNAKEBITE.COM Message-Id: <199805011713.MAA52584@piglet.cc.uic.edu> You are not authorized to send mail to the FEMINISTSF list from your root@CAS.ET.TUDELFT.NL account. You might be authorized to send to the list from another of your accounts, or perhaps when using another mail program which generates slightly different addresses, but LISTSERV has no way to associate this other account or address with yours. If you need assistance or if you have any question regarding the policy of the FEMINISTSF list, please contact the list owners: FEMINISTSF-request@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU. ------------------------ Rejected message (95 lines) -------------------------- Received: from cas.et.tudelft.nl (cas.et.tudelft.nl [130.161.37.2]) by piglet.cc.uic.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA78864 for ; Fri, 1 May 1998 12:13:37 -0500 Received: from simba (remco.et.tudelft.nl) by cas.et.tudelft.nl with SMTP (1.37.109.24/16.2) id AA246502804; Fri, 1 May 1998 19:13:24 +0200 Sender: root@cas.et.tudelft.nl Message-Id: <354A1229.425C648E@snakebite.com> Date: Fri, 01 May 1998 19:19:21 +0100 From: Remco de Zwart X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (X11; I; Linux 1.2.13 i586) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Cc: pm@IER.UNI-STUTTGART.DE Subject: BDG Nominations Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I would like to nominate 2 story collections and one novel. 1. Women of Wonder : The Contemporary Years : Science Fiction by Women from the 1970s to the 1990s. edited by Pamela Sargent. publisher: Harvest Books 1995 ISBN: 0156000334 paperback, list price: US-$15.00 ($12.00 @ Amazon.com) This is an astounding collection of short sf by women writers. Stories such as Octavia Butler's "Bloodchild" and Pat Murphy's "Rachel in Love," just to name a few, make this a must-have collection. The Table of Contents can be found at Amazon.com by pulling up the info. on the book. A short fiction collection is advantageous because it exposes readers to a wide variety of authors, styles, and concepts. And short stories are convenient to read for those with busy schedules (you get the impact of each story in one non-stop read without having to return to previous sections--as with novels--to refresh your memory). ----------------------------------------------------------- 2. Don't Bet on the Prince: Contemporary Feminist Fairy Tales in North America and England. edited by Jack Zipes. publisher: Routledge 1989 ISBN: 0415902630 paperback, list price: US-$17.99 The blurb on the back cover of the book sums it up nicely: "'Don't Bet on the Prince' demonstrates how recent male and female writers, by looking at the classical literary fairy tale with new eyes, have changed the aesthetic constructs and social content of fairy tales in order to reflect the major changes in the roles of sex, gender, socialisation and education since the 1960s. It is an excellent example of how the literature of fantasy and imagination can be harnessed to create a new view of the world." "'Don't Bet on the Prince' is for anyone interested in questioning the traditional values and expectations by which our perceptions of ourselves are formed. It will be of special interest to those concerned with the feminist movement, women's studies and the growing feminist sensibility in fantasy literature. Its tales will also appeal to children, and the child in every adult." -------------------------------------------------------- 3. The Snow Queen by Joan D. Vinge publisher: Warner Books 1992 ISBN: 0445205296 mass market paperback, list price US-$5.99 ($4.79 @ Amazon.com) This novel, which won the Hugo, caused me to get very little sleep for some days. I had a hard time putting it down. The world Joan Vinge creates is complex and enthralling. The book contains very strong female protagonists, a mother-goddess religion, and interesting issues (such as alienating certain individuals from society due to superstition and ignorance, and a powerful Hegemony using the technologically inferior planet Tiamat for its resources without regard to the welfare of the people there). The quote from Vonda McIntyre (in the front of the book) regarding the Snow Queen says it beautifully: "Draws you in and does not let you go...the Snow Queen is a piece of lace: its threads twist and mesh together to form a pattern of complexity and beauty." -------------------------------------------------------- -- Sharon Clark --------------69B4C91A2F2E6235245C6444-- ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 23:24:15 +0100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Alison Page Subject: Re: angels MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lurima - > The feathers bit makes no sense. I imagine they originated with a medieval > artist who had never seen anything fly unless it had wings, so he > extrapolated. > > (The buff male part is all right, though!) Its pretty certain that the hebrew concept of the 'angel' is derived from the mesopotamian semi-deities called (by Semitic speakers) something like kerab(im) and serap(im) = our cherubs and seraphs. Can't remember the details, but if you look at Babylonean or Assyrian bas-reliefs you will see big human figures with large feathered wings - some of them have beaks too and bird feet. They often stand protectively behind the king in sculptures. They are always male because they are kind of spiritual bodyguards. I think that understanding how modern religious ideas are derived from earlier mythical systems makes you realise that stories about angels are part of a continuous myth stretching back long before christianity, or judaism in its present form. And to me that means there are no 'right' and 'wrong' ways of writing about them (apart from the fact that most of these stories are unutterably dull of course) Alison ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 15:31:10 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jo Ann Rangel Subject: Re: angels FE>Received: from piglet.cc.uic.edu [128.248.100.54] by WGSERVER.Silent-Running FE> id AOBOCKEB ; Fri, 1 May 1998 14:30:42 -0500 FE>Received: from piglet.cc.uic.edu (PIGLET.CC.UIC.EDU [128.248.100.54]) FE> by piglet.cc.uic.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id PAA47324; FE> Fri, 1 May 1998 15:03:42 -0500 FE>Received: from LISTSERV.UIC.EDU by LISTSERV.UIC.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release FE> 1.8c) with spool id 550773 for FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU; Fri, 1 FE> May 1998 15:02:24 -0500 FE>Received: from imo30.mx.aol.com (imo30.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.74]) by FE> piglet.cc.uic.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id PAA71440 for FE> ; Fri, 1 May 1998 15:02:22 -0500 FE>Received: from Lurima@aol.com by imo30.mx.aol.com (IMOv14.1) id JHVSa02448 f FE> ; Fri, 1 May 1998 16:01:47 -0400 (EDT FE>X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 16-bit for Windows sub 40 FE>Message-ID: FE>Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 16:01:47 EDT FE>Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" FE> FE>Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" FE> FE>From: Lurima FE>Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] angels FE>To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU FE>In a message dated 98-04-28 14:13:58 EDT, you write: FE><< these benevolent buff male FE> critters often looking vaguely like robed Fabios with feathers, >> FE>The feathers bit makes no sense. I imagine they originated with a medieval FE>artist who had never seen anything fly unless it had wings, so he FE>extrapolated. FE>(The buff male part is all right, though!) FE>Barbara Hiya, On my path to educational excellence, I was in a biology lab class and the professor told us that the feathers on birds are the equivalent of scales on certain species that we would see today as Lizards or reptilian-like critters. I found this statement fascinating to me for the purposes of imagination. Are angels a by-prouduct of all that is created on earth, and feathers are just a tiny piece of the practical purpose of such invention? Are Gargoyles an extention of imagination or a by product of dragon-lore? The connectiveness always interests me to no end. Also to bring this convo back to Feminist Sci-Fi: Wild Seed by Butler was to me one of the better examples of the depiction of a strong woman character dealing with her role as she remains herself an entire being yet time passes over her and past her into centuries...very highly recommended if you are new to Butler if you want to see how a complex story can work on several different levels. Has anyone written a work under Feminist Sci-Fi that has angel-type beings for protagonists? just wondering 8) Jo Ann ----------------------------------------------------- Silent Running BBS, Riverside, California. 2 MajorMUD games, 3 LORD games and 2 Tradewars games WWW.Silent-Running.com / telent silent-running.com 909-343-2030 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 18:43:47 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: joe santini Subject: Re: angels In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Is _Touched by an Angel_ science fiction? If so is it feminist? If so is it literature? One wonders. Certainly it could be considered literature of a sort, since it is initially written, then performed. Feminist? perhaps. Two of the "Angels" are women, and one is usually I think more prominent. Science fiction? There's the rub. It could be more fantastic or utopian instead, IMHO. At 03:31 nox 5/1/98 -0500, you wrote: >FE>Received: from piglet.cc.uic.edu [128.248.100.54] by WGSERVER.Silent-Running >FE> id AOBOCKEB ; Fri, 1 May 1998 14:30:42 -0500 >FE>Received: from piglet.cc.uic.edu (PIGLET.CC.UIC.EDU [128.248.100.54]) >FE> by piglet.cc.uic.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id PAA47324; >FE> Fri, 1 May 1998 15:03:42 -0500 >FE>Received: from LISTSERV.UIC.EDU by LISTSERV.UIC.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release >FE> 1.8c) with spool id 550773 for FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU; Fri, 1 >FE> May 1998 15:02:24 -0500 >FE>Received: from imo30.mx.aol.com (imo30.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.74]) by >FE> piglet.cc.uic.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id PAA71440 for >FE> ; Fri, 1 May 1998 15:02:22 -0500 >FE>Received: from Lurima@aol.com by imo30.mx.aol.com (IMOv14.1) id JHVSa02448 f >FE> ; Fri, 1 May 1998 16:01:47 -0400 (EDT >FE>X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 16-bit for Windows sub 40 >FE>Message-ID: >FE>Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 16:01:47 EDT >FE>Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" >FE> >FE>Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" >FE> >FE>From: Lurima >FE>Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] angels >FE>To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU > >FE>In a message dated 98-04-28 14:13:58 EDT, you write: > >FE><< these benevolent buff male >FE> critters often looking vaguely like robed Fabios with feathers, >> > >FE>The feathers bit makes no sense. I imagine they originated with a medieval >FE>artist who had never seen anything fly unless it had wings, so he >FE>extrapolated. > >FE>(The buff male part is all right, though!) > >FE>Barbara > >Hiya, > >On my path to educational excellence, I >was in a biology lab class and the professor told us that the feathers >on birds are the equivalent of scales on certain species that we would >see today as Lizards or reptilian-like critters. I found this statement >fascinating to me for the purposes of imagination. Are angels a >by-prouduct of all that is created on earth, and feathers are just a >tiny piece of the practical purpose of such invention? Are Gargoyles > an extention of imagination or a by >product of dragon-lore? The connectiveness always interests me to no >end. > >Also to bring this convo back to Feminist Sci-Fi: Wild Seed by Butler >was to me one of the better examples of the depiction of a strong woman >character dealing with her role as she remains herself an entire being >yet time passes over her and past her into centuries...very highly >recommended if you are new to Butler if you want to see how a complex >story can work on several different levels. > >Has anyone written a work under Feminist Sci-Fi that has angel-type >beings for protagonists? just wondering 8) > >Jo Ann > > > ----------------------------------------------------- > Silent Running BBS, Riverside, California. > 2 MajorMUD games, 3 LORD games and 2 Tradewars games > WWW.Silent-Running.com / telent silent-running.com > 909-343-2030 > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * "Have you no respect for the past? For what was thought and believed by your foremothers?" "Why, no," she said. "Why should we? They are all gone. They knew less than we do. If we are not beyond them, we are unworthy of them--and unworthy of the children who must go beyond us." -Charlotte Gilman, "Herland" * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * joseph santini haverford college '01 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 18:35:18 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Frances Green Subject: Re: random comments ... Maybe Alice had been reading Little Women! (Can't off-hand think of the relative dates of each.) I don't remember it, either, but will keep a sharp eye out next time I read Alice. Or, I suppose, get one of those CD-ROMs of western literature, or whatever, and do a text search. Why do I find that idea somehow repugnant? May we consider Alice a feminist heroine of speculative fiction? I suppose we'd have to see her interact with real-world males to judge, but she did not, that I remember, defer more than courtesy required to the male characters she encountered, and she certainly questioned authority! On Fri, 1 May 1998 20:07:35 UT Lesley Hall writes: > >I would swear the first time I encountered the word "cunning" >in the > >context of "charming," rather than "clever," was in ALICE IN > >WONDERLAND. > >My recollection is that my first encounter with this usage was in >_Little >Women_ and that I did register it as different from the meaning I had >already >learnt. (And I must have first read LW around the same time as AiW). I >don't >recall the word in Alice >Lesley >Lesley_Hall@classic.msn.com > _____________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 19:02:51 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Frances Green Subject: Re: Feminism and the Discworld Just received my copy of "The Last Continent" (via Book Pages/UK, very fast: wasn't expecting it for a couple of weeks yet). I'm going home to read it. I expect to have a nice weekend. On Mon, 27 Apr 1998 21:25:45 +0100 Catweasel writes: >It has come to my attention that far too many of you have thus-far >been >deprived of all knowledge and experience of the wonders that comprise >the > Discword. Gentlefolks, please, step this way. Prepare to be >mesmerised >by "The Colour of Magic". Trip "The Light Fantastic" as you celebrate >"Equal Rites." Be "Mort"ified by the faustian tale of "Eric." Come, >"Wyrd Sisters," gaze in awe at the "Pyramids," and perhaps the >changing >of the "Guards! Guards!" double as ushers if you attend the "Moving >Pictures" to see "Reaper Man." "Witches Abroad," you may even find >"Small Gods." "Lords and Ladies," "Men At Arms," to help you unwind we >suggest a little "Soul Music." We promise you "Interesting Times" at >the > "Maskerade," so don't stand there with "Feet of Clay." As added >incentive the "Hogfather" has an offer you can't refuse, if you can >understand his "Jingo." > >? > > >Trust me, I'm a doctor. >Catweasel > >I have an inferiority complex, but it isn't a very good one. > _____________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 19:28:30 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Cindy Smith Subject: Re: Angels and Wings The notion that angels have wings is based on Biblical texts, not medieval artists per se. Genesis 3:24b: "and he stationed the cherubim and the fiery revolving sword, to guard the way to the tree of life" (NAB). The New Jerusalem Bible renders the sentence, "and in front of the garden of Eden he posted the great winged creatures and the fiery flashing sword, to guard the way to the tree of life." The New American Bible notes that the rendering is based on the ancient Greek version. The NJB notes that this is borrowed from Babylonian mythology." Exodus 25:18 has "two great winged creatures of beaten gold," which the NJB notes say is equivalent to the Babylonaian "karibu, half-animal, half-human spirits guarding the gates of temples and palaces. In Biblical descriptions and Middle Eastern iconography, the great winged creatures were winged sphinxes. Winged creatures played no part in the cult in the desert, and do not seem to occur in the cult of Yahweh earlier than the stay of the ark at Shiloh, where Yahweh was entitled, 'He who is enthroned on the great winged creatures.' 1 S 4:4; 2 S 6:2; see 2 K 19:15; Ps 80:1; 99:1, and is said to 'ride on the winged creatures', 2 S 22:11; see Ps 18:10. In Solomon's Temple, they formed a frame for the ark and disappeared when the ark disappeared. In the post-exilic Temple, two little figures of winged creatures were attached to the mercy-seat, see preceding note. In Ezk 1 and 10, God's chariot is drawn by winged creatures." Note that the NAB translates "winged creatures" as "cherubim," one of the nine choirs of angels described in the Bible. The angels are sometimes male, though not necessarily. In Ezekiel, it's difficult to tell their sex. Isaiah's angels, however, are male. Isaiah 6:2 says, "Seraphim were stationed above; each of them had six wings: with two they veiled their faces, with two they veiled their feet, and with two they hovered aloft." The word "feet" is a euphemism in Hebrew for the male sexual organ. Thus, "to bathe your feet" means to engage in sexual intercourse and "to cover your feet" means to urinate. However, I'm reliably informed by someone who knows Hebrew (as I do not) that the word here for "veil" is not the same as the word normally used to mean urination; therefore, these angels are literally "veiling" or "covering" their penises with their wings (presumably out of modesty). Revelation 4:8 has Seraphim very similar to Isaiah. Ezekiel's angels are really interesting but I can't do him justice; you should read it for yourself. Leonard Nimoy did an interesting "In Search Of...." story on Ezekiel's description of angels once, claiming that it may have been an ancient Israelite's description of an extraterrestrial being (aka Daniken's Ancient Astronaut's theory), though I don't think theories like that hold much water. Daniken has been pretty thoroughly discredited and "In Search Of..." wasn't known for its scientific accuracy, though I used to watch it simply because I love Leonard Nimoy :-). Cindy Smith Spawn of a Jewish Carpenter GO AGAINST THE FLOW! \\ _\\\_ _///_ // >IXOYE=('> <`)= _<< A Real Live Catholic in Georgia cms@dragon.com // /// \\\ \\ Delay not your conversion to the LORD, Put it not off from day to day Ecclesiasticus/Ben Sira 5:8 Read the mailing list Bible@dragon.com Read the mailing list Literature@dragon.com Read the mailing list nt-trans@dragon.com (Greek New Testament) Read the mailing list ot-trans@dragon.com (Hebrew Old Testament) ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 16:51:15 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jessie Stickgold-Sarah Subject: Re: Angels and Wings In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 01 May 98 19:28:30 CDT." <009C58BF.C972BCC0.22@dragon.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii I always admired the cherubim and seraphim in, I believe, the 3rd Madeline L'Engle book, "A Wind In The Door". They sure weren't human. In fact, I have a vague memory of Mrs. Who, Which & Whatsit (from A Wrinkle In Time) being angels, although I think they were claiming that they term "angels" was something of a metaphor. I don't know whether I'd call those books feminist, because I think in many ways they use traditional patterns of male/female interaction. On the other hand, I suspect it was much more radical in 1962 to have your main characters be strong, competent women who were brilliant at math and science. And then to teach that sort of thing to children! jessie ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 16:58:45 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jennifer Krauel Subject: BDG Voting begins 5/2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The voting period for the Feminist Science Fiction and Fantasy Book Discussion Group will open tomorrow, May 2nd. You are invited to vote on books to be part of our discussion during the upcoming six months. The voting period is from May 2 until May 8. That means you must send your vote by the end of Friday the 8th (midnight PST, west coast of US) in order for them to be included. Winners will be announced Monday, May 11. Discussion on the first book will begin Monday, June 1. To vote: 1. Send an email to terriergraphics@cybertours.com with your vote. If you don't receive a confirmation within 48 hours, you should resubmit your votes, to make sure things don't get lost. 2. Vote for up to six books. The six books with the highest number of votes win. In the event of a tie, we'll find some random way to decide which book(s) are selected (e.g. coin toss). Petra sent the final list of nominated books in her email announcing the close of voting earlier today. We are waiting for the list to be posted to the FSF web site and will distribute the URL as soon as it's available. We'll keep the actual votes confidential but will also save them. -- Jennifer Krauel book discussion group coordinator jkrauel@actioneer.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 17:23:32 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jo Ann Rangel Subject: Re: Angels and Wings FE>Received: from piglet.cc.uic.edu [128.248.100.54] by WGSERVER.Silent-Running FE> id BADKBECL ; Fri, 1 May 1998 16:58:22 -0500 FE>Received: from piglet.cc.uic.edu (PIGLET.CC.UIC.EDU [128.248.100.54]) FE> by piglet.cc.uic.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id SAA66402; FE> Fri, 1 May 1998 18:51:24 -0500 FE>Received: from LISTSERV.UIC.EDU by LISTSERV.UIC.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release FE> 1.8c) with spool id 556670 for FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU; Fri, 1 FE> May 1998 18:51:18 -0500 FE>Received: from mail1.digital.com (mail1.digital.com [204.123.2.50]) by FE> piglet.cc.uic.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id SAA76052 for FE> ; Fri, 1 May 1998 18:51:17 -0500 FE>Received: from pobox1.pa.dec.com (pobox1.pa.dec.com [16.1.240.19]) by FE> mail1.digital.com (8.8.8/8.8.8/WV1.0d) with SMTP id QAA14118 for FE> ; Fri, 1 May 1998 16:51:16 -0700 (PDT FE>Received: from shoebox-greetings.pa.dec.com by pobox1.pa.dec.com FE> (5.65v3.2/1.1.10.5/07Nov97-1157AM) id AA21278; Fri, 1 May 1998 FE> 16:51:16 -0700 FE>Received: from localhost by shoebox-greetings.pa.dec.com; FE> (5.65v3.2/1.1.8.2/06Jun96-0357PM) id AA08953; Fri, 1 May 1998 FE> 16:51:15 -0700 FE>X-Mailer: exmh version 1.6.9 8/22/96 FE>X-Mts: smtp FE>Message-ID: <9805012351.AA08953@shoebox-greetings.pa.dec.com> FE>Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 16:51:15 -0700 FE>Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" FE> FE>Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" FE> FE>From: Jessie Stickgold-Sarah FE>Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] Angels and Wings FE>To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU FE>In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 01 May 98 19:28:30 CDT." FE> <009C58BF.C972BCC0.22@dragon.com> FE>I always admired the cherubim and seraphim in, I believe, the 3rd Madeline FE>L'Engle book, "A Wind In The Door". They sure weren't human. In fact, I have FE>vague memory of Mrs. Who, Which & Whatsit (from A Wrinkle In Time) being FE>angels, although I think they were claiming that they term "angels" was FE>something of a metaphor. FE>I don't know whether I'd call those books feminist, because I think in many FE>ways they use traditional patterns of male/female interaction. On the other FE>hand, I suspect it was much more radical in 1962 to have your main character FE>be strong, competent women who were brilliant at math and science. And then FE>teach that sort of thing to children! FE>jessie Hmmmm, well perhaps Feminist would be appropriate to those works because they did portray females as strong and competant and able to handle tough situations...as with all definitions, the word "Feminist" alone to me represents such attributes. Now the works having "angel-like" characters in them, may put the book into a "fantasy" context, as a category, but then again I hate labeling or categorizing things not all things fit into their respective slots so readily grin. And I hope this thread of thought does not turn into another Gender Difference talk we must sink our perverbial teeth into Feminist sci-Fi works grin. Take care, Jo Ann ----------------------------------------------------- Silent Running BBS, Riverside, California. 2 MajorMUD games, 3 LORD games and 2 Tradewars games WWW.Silent-Running.com / telent silent-running.com 909-343-2030 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 22:07:11 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Cindy Smith Subject: Re: Angels and Wings I think the L'Engle book you're thinking of is the fourth one in the series, "Many Waters," in which Sandy and Dennys (the twins) go back in time to the days of Noah. The Seraphim were good angels, whereas she portrayed the "scarabs" (?) as evil angels who were the same as the "sons of God" who had intercourse with the daughters of men in Genesis 6:2 and 6:4. Oh, yes, they were called "Nephilim" in L'Engle's book. It's unclear in the Bible whether the Nephilim were good or evil, but I believe L'Engle portrays the Nephilim as evil. Has anyone read the book recently enough to remember? As I recall, the ArchAngel Michael shows up. As to feminism, I think L'Engle has an attitude that good women keep neat houses, whereas evil women keep untidy houses, as that is the way women are portrayed in the novel. I have a mousewife picture on my refrigerator door who is sweeping dirt under a rug and saying, "Dull women have immaculate homes." Cindy Smith Spawn of a Jewish Carpenter GO AGAINST THE FLOW! \\ _\\\_ _///_ // >IXOYE=('> <`)= _<< A Real Live Catholic in Georgia cms@dragon.com // /// \\\ \\ Delay not your conversion to the LORD, Put it not off from day to day Ecclesiasticus/Ben Sira 5:8 Read the mailing list Bible@dragon.com Read the mailing list Literature@dragon.com Read the mailing list nt-trans@dragon.com (Greek New Testament) Read the mailing list ot-trans@dragon.com (Hebrew Old Testament) ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 23:48:22 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Marina Subject: Re: X-Files: Sex with angels In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Fri, 1 May 1998, Lurima wrote: > I believe that angels are resurrected humans. They've already been humans on > Earth; now they're in a different state of existence, with more powers and > abilities and knowledge than they had as mere Earthlings. But they're still > themselves. When I was a kid, I often had fantasies about becoming a ghost after death. It still seems pretty attractive: you can fly, walk though walls, and be invisible. But the main thing is, you get a chance to explore the world without having to deal with humans. Because in real world, being a female means that you can never be safe by yourself. Basically, half of the world is closed to you because of the danger of rape, abuse, harassment, and all kind of stuff that you won't even have a right to protect yourself from, because "since you went there, you were asking for it". And the other half is closed to you because it's "not appropriate for women". Even if you are a particularly stubborn individual who believes that the meaningless rules are invented to be broken, you'll spend most of the time either defending yourself from those who consider you "fair game", since you've entered the territory forbidden for females, or explaining to the world why is it that you wanted to go there at the first place, and why you don't think that "women can't do it" like everyone else believes. As a result, there is very little chance to actually do anything you might have went there for. When you are a ghost, you are pretty much safe. You don't have a body, so you cannot be raped. And if someone gets on your nerves, you can scare the living hell out of him without getting legal problems. So, you can go anywhere you want. Because you are safe. And free. Being an angel must be pretty close to that. Except, for what I understand, they spend quite a bit of time delivering messages to various prophets and protecting children and idiots from danger. They also seem to have some kind of class hierarchy by power and significance, which seems a lot less attractive to me. Finally, if angels are also divided into males and females, I am withdrawing my application. I've got enough of the gender/power issues in this world. If it continues in the next one, I'd rather stick to being a ghost, where you don't have to report to anyone nor communicate with anyone if you don't want to. On the positive side, I have a reason to believe that angels are sexless (thanks God!). It's very simple: if you live forever, you don't have to reproduce. Think what would happened if people stopped dying. Reproduction is a way to replace those who are gone. If you are immortal, there is no point to do so. If you don't have to reproduce, you don't need sexual organs (which was their origional purpose, before humans started using them as merits of strength and intelligence). No sex organs = no gender = no gender differences = absense of all the crap that comes with them. There is a place in Bible where Jesus gets a question about a woman who had seven husbands, all of whom had died. The question was, whose wife she was going to be in "another world". The answer was "no one's" because in another world you are not going to be men and women, but "like angels". I don't think it's boring. I think it's cool for once having your existance not to be defined by which set of organs you've got between your legs. By the way, there is a nice story about angels (or what they could be) by Tiptree, Jr., written not long before she killed herself. Anyone remembers the title? Marina "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society happens to be selling at the time." Naomi Wolf ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 May 1998 01:14:13 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: ME Hunter Subject: Re: Angels and Wings In-Reply-To: <009C58D5.F472B9A0.2@dragon.com> (message from Cindy Smith on Fri, 1 May 1998 22:07:11 -0500) Hunh....Cindy, I'd have to say that you haven't read enough L'Engle. Jessie was definitely talking about _The Wind in the Door_ in which one of the main characters is a cherubim (yes, it's plural) and takes Meg, Calvin and Charles Wallace through time & space. As it happens, I think _Many Waters_ is L'Engle's worst book. I general I find L'Engle's work to be very feminist. E. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 May 1998 14:09:09 UT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Lesley Hall Subject: Re: random comments ... >May we consider Alice a feminist heroine of speculative fiction? There is a poem by Robert Graves about 'That prime heroine of our nation, Alice'. It's certainly a subversive work--all those parodies of improving poems for children. And equally certainly far from deferential towards authority figures: though interestingly it tends to be the women (Queen of Hearts, Red Queen) who are fierce dominating figures, and the kings rather dithery or vague (or asleep). Though the Caterpillar and Humpty Dumpty are bossy enough. I'm not sure I'd call it feminist except insofar as it subverts conventional sugary notions of what a little girl is like... and as I've suggested, its subversion goes a good deal further than gender expectations. Lesley Lesley_Hall@classic.msn.com ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 May 1998 14:03:19 UT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Lesley Hall Subject: Re: angels >Has anyone written a work under Feminist Sci-Fi that has angel-type >beings for protagonists? just wondering 8) There is a book called something like _Angel Island_, by someone whose name I don't recall (?Inez something), originally written, if not published, in the late C19th or early C20th, about men who discover an island inhabited by winged women. They can't deal with it and try and get the women to cut off their wings. Lesley Lesley_Hall@classic.msn.com ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 May 1998 10:07:33 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Sharon Anderson Subject: Joanna Russ Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Two brief things: 1) I hope I interpreted correctly, that Tepper's Gibbon's Decline and Fall is really and truly nominated. If not, I'd like to nominate it. I just finished it. Tepper just keeps on getting better and better and better, with every book. 2) "I think the biggest obstacle to discussing WAWFF as a group is not its non-fiction status, but rather it's rather hefty US$27.95 price. Even with the MG discount, it's still $23.76. However, I think perhaps we could have an informal discussion of it among those list members who do get it. Also, I think we may want to give people a while to read it -- I'm probably going to continue to read my copy in "dip" mode, rather than in a straightforward fashion, so I would think that it'll be several months before I'll be ready to discuss it." Yes, please. Joanna, thank you for coming up with some new print for those of us who have been starving for your work. If I were wealthy enough, and able enough, I'd willingly become a Russ groupie. As with most of her essays, this one is heavy going. It will take me some time, too, to finish it. I am heartily enjoying it, however. I would dearly love to see a discussion of it...in a couple of months. Sharon Anderson ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 May 1998 11:30:56 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Cindy Smith Subject: Re: Angels and Wings Well, I guess it's too many years since I read _A Wind in the Door_, but I thought it was quite boring. The technical descriptions of the mitochondria became tedious. I thought it was her worst book. I liked _A Swiftly Tilting Planet_ much better. I thought _Many Water_ was okay, but certainly not her best. Her non-fiction is not riveting. Cindy Smith Spawn of a Jewish Carpenter GO AGAINST THE FLOW! \\ _\\\_ _///_ // >IXOYE=('> <`)= _<< A Real Live Catholic in Georgia cms@dragon.com // /// \\\ \\ Delay not your conversion to the LORD, Put it not off from day to day Ecclesiasticus/Ben Sira 5:8 Read the mailing list Bible@dragon.com Read the mailing list Literature@dragon.com Read the mailing list nt-trans@dragon.com (Greek New Testament) Read the mailing list ot-trans@dragon.com (Hebrew Old Testament) ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 May 1998 11:41:11 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: joe santini Subject: Re: Angels and Wings In-Reply-To: <009C5946.3C650AE0.6@dragon.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" WHAT technical descriptions of mitochondria? i thought the _fantastic_ descriptions of the intra-mitochondrial worlds (which were, as far as I know, complete fiction_ were beautiful. Also, I think Many Waters is one of her more beautiful books. But then I read it when I was very young, so it was one of my first science fiction novels... also, A Swiftly Tilting Planet, while not exactly feminist, although containing VERY strongly feminist characters, is charming. At 11:30 diem 5/2/98 -0500, you wrote: >Well, I guess it's too many years since I read _A Wind in the Door_, but >I thought it was quite boring. The technical descriptions of the >mitochondria became tedious. I thought it was her worst book. I liked >_A Swiftly Tilting Planet_ much better. I thought _Many Water_ was okay, >but certainly not her best. Her non-fiction is not riveting. > > > >Cindy Smith > Spawn of a Jewish Carpenter >GO AGAINST THE FLOW! \\ _\\\_ _///_ // > >IXOYE=('> <`)= _<< A Real Live Catholic in Georgia >cms@dragon.com // /// \\\ \\ > >Delay not your conversion to the LORD, >Put it not off from day to day > Ecclesiasticus/Ben Sira 5:8 > >Read the mailing list Bible@dragon.com >Read the mailing list Literature@dragon.com >Read the mailing list nt-trans@dragon.com (Greek New Testament) >Read the mailing list ot-trans@dragon.com (Hebrew Old Testament) > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * "Have you no respect for the past? For what was thought and believed by your foremothers?" "Why, no," she said. "Why should we? They are all gone. They knew less than we do. If we are not beyond them, we are unworthy of them--and unworthy of the children who must go beyond us." -Charlotte Gilman, "Herland" * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * joseph santini haverford college '01 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 May 1998 13:05:27 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Penelope Gibbs Organization: UGA College of Vet. Med Subject: Re: off-topic Women/fighting gender difference Hi folks! > > Men certainly have higher levels of displayed violence - there's no arguing > that. Whether this is a result of their general greater strength (as > compared to women), or some nasty little characteristic carried on the Y > chromosome, or of cultural training (not to be underestimated, in my > opinion) is still very much an open question as far as I can tell. > (TIC) Some friends and I have decided it is not something ON the Y chromosome, it is something missing. Y X { see! the Y is missing the extra leg! :->). We call it that ol' mutant Y chromosome. (Also, the molecular weight is less in the Y chromosome). On a more serious note: It is fairly accepted in the scientific community that both genetics and cultural training directly lead to our behavior as children and adults...most theories in science tend to be amalgamations of several theories and/or facts. Having a pretty strong propensity for violence myself (something I am not particularly proud of), it is clear to me after 15 years of therapy and some serious self-analysis that this undesirable personality trait could have been curbed earlier had I been raised in the "right" environment, but as it turned out I became quite like my Mother (whom I love dearly but she often deferred to violent fits of rage with my siblings and I), and these fits often included physical violence against us (and sometimes inanimate objects). I NEVER saw my Father behave this way. He was an escaped U.S. POW in Germany during the Battle of the Bulge and actually told me of the time he had to kill a German soldier in a farmhouse my Father and his buddy had taken shelter in after they escaped. He really did not want to kill him, but the German soldier had managed to get Dad's buddy's finger in his mouth (as he tried to cover it) and was biting down (there were other soldiers upstairs in the house), so my Dad hit the German soldier in the head. But when my Father spoke of this, it was apparent he took no pleasure in it. He was simply "doing his duty", and it was a duty he took right serious-like (oops! Southern slang slip...). I truly think he felt "bad" about it, but having the high school equivalency of an eighth grade level education, I don't think he had the words to express his true feelings at the time nor did he really want to think about it too much. I can say honestly and with some certainty my Mother was more violent than my Father, and that I tended to follow that behavior until I sought professional help. The feelings of rage still occur, but less often and now I have ways of dealing with it without breaking things. I know had this training begun a lot earlier my struggles with my violent nature would have taken less time, less money, and less energy. So, as we all know there are lots of exceptions to every "Generally...". But I certainly know MANY women with the capabilities of being violent and/or the ability to be an EXCELLENT soldier. (Also, I don't believe the capacity for violence NECESSARILY makes a good soldier...self-control, a strong sense of duty, determination and other qualities I can see as a MUST!) Penny ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 May 1998 10:19:43 -0700 Reply-To: ltimmel@halcyon.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "L. Timmel Duchamp" Subject: Re: angels MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lesley Hall wrote: > > There is a book called something like _Angel Island_, by someone whose name I > don't recall (?Inez something), originally written, if not published, in the > late C19th or early C20th, about men who discover an island inhabited by > winged women. They can't deal with it and try and get the women to cut off > their wings. This is by Inez Haynes Gillmore (1873-1970), a suffragist, and was first published in 1914. I enjoyed this novel-- but could not love it because I felt frustrated by the ultimate submission of these free & powerful creatures to patriarchy-- with all hope and intention lying in their sacrificing themselves to their daughters' possibility for freedom. (My frustration was due largely to the author's having subscribed to certain stereotypical assumptions about women, which allowed their captors to divide & conquer them.) The novel was reprinted by New American Library in 1988, so there may be copies floating around in used bookstores... Timmi Duchamp http://www.halcyon.com/ltimmel/ ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 3 May 1998 01:11:56 -0400 Reply-To: asaro@sff.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Catherine Asaro Subject: Great news MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I just heard some great news ... Our own Vonda McIntyre won the Nebula Award for her novel THE MOON AND THE SUN. Congratulations to Vonda! I get this listserv as a digest, so if someone else has already posted the news, my apologies for repeating it. But I was so pleased, I couldn't resist. It was a great ballot this year, all good stories. The rest of the winners are ... Novella: "Abandon in Place", Jerry Oltion Novelette: "The Flowers of Aulit Prison", Nancy Kress Short Story: "Sister Emily's Lightship", Jane Yolen Grandmaster: Poul Anderson Service to SFWA: Robin Wayne Bailey Best regards Catherine Asaro http://www.sff.net/people/asaro/ ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 3 May 1998 12:11:54 UT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Lesley Hall Subject: Re: angels Timmi Duchamp wrote, re Gilmore's _Angel Island_ (1914) >(My frustration was due largely to the author's having subscribed to certain >stereotypical assumptions about women, which allowed their captors to >divide & conquer them.) I assumed that this was in fact meant to be an allegory of the way women let themselves be lessened in contemporary society by having their strengths (wings) cut off: oppression which they passed on to their daughters. What was also rather chilling was the way she presented the different strategies employed by the men to persuade the winged women that they'd be happier wingless. >The novel was reprinted by New American Library in 1988, so there may be >copies floating around in used bookstores... I must have this, but can't readily find it among the many piles of books lying on my floor! Lesley Lesley_Hall@classic.msn.com ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 3 May 1998 15:08:03 +0000 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Comments: Authenticated sender is From: Anthea Subject: "To write like a woman : essays..." In-Reply-To: <98549bd9.353c0fe2@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Hello all A few weeks ago, some one on the list recommended that I read Joanna Russ' book "To write like a woman : essays in feminism and science fiction" in view of my comments on Ellison's "A boy and his dog". I collected the book yesterday morning and found I could barely bear put it down once I started. I finished it this morning. The book has probably been discussed a thousand times before on this list, but I'd be grateful for comments on it (if it's a contentious subject, private email would be welcome). I'm really looking forward to reading her new book. AJ ----------------------------------------- gaudit@global.co.za ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 3 May 1998 08:00:35 +0100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Maryelizabeth Hart Subject: Vonda WON the NEBULA!!! Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" The Nebula Winners are: Writer Emeritus: Nelson S. Bond Service Award: Robin Wayne Bailey Short Story: Jane Yolen, "Sister Emily's Lightship" Novelette: Nancy Kress, "The Flowers of Aulit Prison" Novella: Jerry Oltion, "Abandon in Place" Novel: Vonda McIntyre, _The Moon and the Sun_ Woohoo!!! And she told me months ago she didn't even think she'd make the short list of finalists!! Yay, Vonda!! Maryelizabeth Mysterious Galaxy 619-268-4747 3904 Convoy St, #107 800-811-4747 San Diego, CA 92111 619-268-4775 FAX http://www.mystgalaxy.com ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 3 May 1998 08:14:47 +0100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Maryelizabeth Hart Subject: Re: Joanna Russ : WHAT ARE WE FIGHTING FOR? Comments: cc: shander@CDSNET.NET, donnaneely@earthlink.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sharon, Donna et al: Donna and I had thought about discussing WAWFF in bits and piees, either on list or off. She suggested several alternatives: >I would love to have an informal discussion arrangement. And yes, bit by >bit would be best >I think. Each essay would provoke as much discussion as any one book, I >would imagine. >Maybe conquer one every couple of months? Wouldn't it be fun to arrange a >"live chat" >about each essay? Or maybe we could create an "online APA". Each person >appends a file or >clips their comments to the message and we route it to the next person or >route to all of >us (multiple addresses) each time someone adds a bit. Or maybe we could >use someone's web >page space for an online comments page that we maintain through the >discussion then >archive when we're done and start the next one. Then folks could go to it >whenever and >wouldn't be holding up "progress". I have web page space at Earthlink, >though I have >never done one. Maybe it is time to learn ;-). So there is definitely interest, we just need to determine how and when to start, it seems to me. Pax, Maryelizabeth Mysterious Galaxy 619-268-4747 3904 Convoy St, #107 800-811-4747 San Diego, CA 92111 619-268-4775 FAX http://www.mystgalaxy.com ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 3 May 1998 12:33:44 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: donna simone Subject: Re: Joanna Russ : WHAT ARE WE FIGHTING FOR? Comments: To: Maryelizabeth Hart Comments: cc: shander@cdsnet.net, gaudit@global.co.za, FEM-SF MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sharon, Maryelizabeth, Anthea, et al> >>.....an informal discussion arrangement. And yes, bit by bit ....... to arrange a "live chat" .... Or maybe we could create an "online APA"......use web page space for an online comments page that we maintain through the discussion.....yadda yadda.....>> >So there is definitely interest, we just need to determine how and when to start, it seems to me. Pax, Maryelizabeth> And Anthea, based on your morning's post, are you another potential member of the Underground Cabal Reading Russ (UCRR)? We could probably hit some of the essays from _To Write..._ while Donna (fuming foot tapping here) waits for her copy of _....Fighting For_ . Hmmmm...have to come up with a more clever title so we have a better acronym........Outspoken Groupies of Russ' Essays (OGREs) or perhaps Happy Acolytes to Russ' Periodic Incredible Essay Submissions (HARPIES) or Crabby Russ Old-timers Needing Essays to Survive (CRONES)?????? At any rate, I am going to press on with checking out my web page options at Earthlink. (I have really enjoyed how the Omni Salon zine has used that platform for the shared stories effort.) Just in case we REALLY want to do this someday. ;-) RePax, Donna donnaneely@earthlink.net ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 3 May 1998 14:15:21 EDT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Melnjo Subject: Re: Joanna Russ : WHAT ARE WE FIGHTING FOR? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Hi Donna; I'm new to the list, but a long time Russ fan, alright - longer than I want to admit. If the Russ discussion goes live, I'd love to be included. I favor CRONES, in fact, I like it a lot. If this thread continues on this list, I'll be able to follow it. But if it moves---. So do please keep me posted, even tho I'm a newbie? Thanks. I'm so glad I finally found you all. Mary-Ellen Maynard Crystal Mist Glass Carving Guffey, CO ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 3 May 1998 12:31:14 -0700 Reply-To: ltimmel@halcyon.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "L. Timmel Duchamp" Subject: Re: Gillmore's _Angel Island_ (was: [*FSFFU*] angels) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lesley Hall wrote: > I assumed that this was in fact meant to be an allegory of the way women let > themselves be lessened in contemporary society by having their strengths > (wings) cut off: oppression which they passed on to their daughters. What was > also rather chilling was the way she presented the different strategies > employed by the men to persuade the winged women that they'd be happier > wingless. Chilling, yes, but for me also frustrating. As I'm halfway through the new Russ book, I'm inclined to attribute this frustration to impatience with the author for not having understood how deeply she had bought into cultural arguments explaining women's oppression. (Russ might even say Gillmore couldn't have been reading Russ's hero of heroes, Matilda Joslyn Gage!) In a note to Chapter Eight ("Seeing Red"), Russ writes: "As Delphy puts it, `to say that ideology acts on reality is one thing,' but to say that ideology-- language, schooling, socialization, all come under this heading-- *causes* reality *all by itself* leaves up in the air the very important matter of what *causes* language, schooling, socialization, and so on. Ideology (says Delphy, and I agree) cannot be the ultimate cause of anything since this `implies that ideology is *its own cause*.' To accept this is to fall back into a theory of culture as totally arbitrary, i.e., that `social structure is produced by ideas, which are themselves produced by nothing.' Such a belief, which is the dominant ideology of our society, can only describe a static situation in which patriarchy causes socialization etc., and socialization etc causes patriarchy in an endless, unchanging loop. Some feminists have proposed this analysis-- or rather, this lack of analysis-- of patriarchy." Following Russ's point, then, it makes no sense that four free, powerful creatures can be trapped by the ideology of the four human males, & that ideology can work to twist them inside out. That it does implies that there is something biologically hardwired in female creatures (human or otherwise) to make them fall for such claptrap. Thus, my frustration, because I think this is where the book goes wrong. Ever since I read _Angel Island_, by the way, I've had an urge to rewrite the story-- without the "angels" succumbing to ideology that would be meaningless to anyone who hadn't been raised in it from birth. Timmi Duchamp ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 3 May 1998 20:01:22 UT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Lesley Hall Subject: Re: Gillmore's _Angel Island_ (was: [*FSFFU*] angels) >Chilling, yes, but for me also frustrating. As I'm halfway through the >new Russ book, I'm inclined to attribute this frustration to impatience >with the author for not having understood how deeply she had bought into >cultural arguments explaining women's oppression. (Russ might even say >Gillmore couldn't have been reading Russ's hero of heroes, Matilda >Joslyn Gage!) Ideas about innate difference were part and parcel of the first wave of feminism (not entirely and unequivocally, as your reference to Gage indicates, but to a very great extent). The ideas about women being more emotional and capable of love/affection, naturally moral etc, while they could be turned on their head and given a different value so that women came out superior in a binary scheme of division of human qualities, were still dangerous ideas. Charlotte Perkins Gilman's _Herland_ it seems to me also falls into some of the same traps: although the women of Herland are not reduced and enslaved as are the women of Angel Island, the book still 'buys in' to a construction of women as essentially maternal and morally superior which could have pernicious payoffs (e.g. see Lucy Bland's _Banishing the Beast: English Feminism and Sexual Morality 1880-1914_ for the ways in which a 'social purity' feminism using a maternal rhetoric and with an agenda of morally cleansing society could be highly oppressive along lines of class and ethnicity). While some late C19th/early C20th feminists were clearly using ideas of either difference or similarity strategically (women were different from men and therefore could not be politically represented by them, therefore should have the vote; women were as capable as men of rational thought and understanding and therefore should have the vote) others were, as Gilmore seems to have been (though this begs the question of how far _Angel Island_ was a thought-experiment rather than the expression of deeply-held views on female nature) committed to ideas of innate essentialist difference. Lesley Lesley_Hall@classic.msn.com ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 3 May 1998 19:43:59 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: joe santini Subject: Re: Gillmore's _Angel Island_ (was: [*FSFFU*] angels) In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I believe the differences between Angel Island and Herland (I havent read Angel, so correct me if I'm wrong) is that the women in Angel were left alone all their lives, while in Herland they constructed a new society based on what they had before their men died out. (It reminded me of Whileaway's society a little, except I felt that Whileaway was more realistic. But anyway.) In Herland women were given by their Goddess the ability to have children as an automatic function; thus I think it became almost inevitable that their religion and social construction were based on that. Still I found it hard to believe that there wasn't a war-like group like the *Far Dareis Mai* in Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time books or dueling constructions like in The Female Man; the entire society was peaceful and benevolent. Still they managed to keep themselves non-subjective to the visiting men, although they claimed awe and wonder at their supposedly "great society." At 08:01 nox 5/3/98 UT, you wrote: > >Chilling, yes, but for me also frustrating. As I'm halfway through the > >new Russ book, I'm inclined to attribute this frustration to impatience > >with the author for not having understood how deeply she had bought into > >cultural arguments explaining women's oppression. (Russ might even say > >Gillmore couldn't have been reading Russ's hero of heroes, Matilda > >Joslyn Gage!) > >Ideas about innate difference were part and parcel of the first wave of >feminism (not entirely and unequivocally, as your reference to Gage indicates, >but to a very great extent). The ideas about women being more emotional and >capable of love/affection, naturally moral etc, while they could be turned on >their head and given a different value so that women came out superior in a >binary scheme of division of human qualities, were still dangerous ideas. >Charlotte Perkins Gilman's _Herland_ it seems to me also falls into some of >the same traps: although the women of Herland are not reduced and enslaved as >are the women of Angel Island, the book still 'buys in' to a construction of >women as essentially maternal and morally superior which could have >pernicious payoffs (e.g. see Lucy Bland's _Banishing the Beast: English >Feminism and Sexual Morality 1880-1914_ for the ways in which a 'social >purity' feminism using a maternal rhetoric and with an agenda of morally >cleansing society could be highly oppressive along lines of class and >ethnicity). > While some late C19th/early C20th feminists were clearly using ideas of >either difference or similarity strategically (women were different from men >and therefore could not be politically represented by them, therefore should >have the vote; women were as capable as men of rational thought and >understanding and therefore should have the vote) others were, as Gilmore >seems to have been (though this begs the question of how far _Angel Island_ >was a thought-experiment rather than the expression of deeply-held views on >female nature) committed to ideas of innate essentialist difference. >Lesley >Lesley_Hall@classic.msn.com > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * "Have you no respect for the past? For what was thought and believed by your foremothers?" "Why, no," she said. "Why should we? They are all gone. They knew less than we do. If we are not beyond them, we are unworthy of them--and unworthy of the children who must go beyond us." -Charlotte Gilman, "Herland" * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * joseph santini haverford college '01 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 May 1998 06:51:10 +0000 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Comments: Authenticated sender is From: Anthea Subject: Re: Joanna Russ : WHAT ARE WE FIGHTING FOR? In-Reply-To: <001e01bd76b1$409c0e60$35ae2499@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT On 3 May 98 at 12:33, donna simone wrote: > And Anthea, based on your morning's post, are you another potential > member of the Underground Cabal Reading Russ (UCRR)? We could > probably hit some of the essays from _To Write..._ while Donna > (fuming foot tapping here) waits for her copy of _....Fighting For_ > . Hmmmm...have to come up with a more clever title so we have a > better acronym........Outspoken Groupies of Russ' Essays (OGREs) or > perhaps Happy Acolytes to Russ' Periodic Incredible Essay > Submissions (HARPIES) or Crabby Russ Old-timers Needing Essays to > Survive (CRONES)?????? Sign me up - effective yesterday. "To Write..." was the first 'serious' book of Joanna Russ' that I'd read (hangs head in shame) and I was greatly impressed. I'm getting "The Female Man" on Wednesday Would someone PLEASE let me know the instant the book is published! We normally use Amazon.com, but haven't found it that effective of late. So I'm going to get someone in our New York office to buy it and ship it over by DHL courier. With any luck I should have it two days (at the most) after it appears in the bookstores. AJ ----------------------------------------- gaudit@global.co.za ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 3 May 1998 23:52:43 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Joslyn Grassby Subject: BDG Halfway Human Comments: To: feministsf@uic.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------2C2276878A5EC78800A09FE6" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------2C2276878A5EC78800A09FE6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit --------------2C2276878A5EC78800A09FE6 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-ID: <354D5EC9.B1DEC0BA@nlc-bnc.ca> Date: Sun, 03 May 1998 23:23:07 -0700 From: Joslyn Grassby X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: feministsf@listserv.uic.ecu Subject: BDG Halfway Human Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The purpose of this message is to initiate discussion of Carolyn Ives Gilman's book, "Halfway Human", (1998). Jennifer Krauel asked me to make some prefatory remarks: they are below. One caveat, however. Although I have read the book with pleasure and admiration, it was a reading for enjoyment and not the kind of close reading necessary for comment. I am busy rereading it, but because of the pressure of work and other commitments, I am only about a third of the way through this second reading. As a result, the comments below are on that portion and I will post more in a few days. And, please assume that the statements below all have an IMHO affixed. "Halfway Human" is the story of Tedla Galele, a neuter, or "bland" from the planet Gamma Discipulis, or Gammadis. The story opens with it found bleeding from a suicide attempt in an alley on the planet Capella. The book alternates between omnisicient narrator portions on Capella and Tedla's first person narrative of her life on Gammadis and how she escaped that planet. Tedla throughout is referred to as "it", a usage I found very unsettling. To use the term "it" and yet to be referring to a human, very effectively sets up a dissonance that keeps the reader alert and uncomfortable. And it is in many ways an uncomfortable book. Children on Gammadis are sexually undifferentiated until the age of about twelve when they "become human", i.e., either male or female. If they remain neuter, they have somehow failed to become human, and are relegated to a life of of drudgery, whether farm work, cooking, cleaning or serving. They live in mean warrens apart from humans. The conditioning of the children prior to their change leads them, for the most part, to ignore blands or even to despise and bully them (although it is the blands who take care of them). Tedla, early on, seems somewhat different from other chldren in that she genuinely cares for a bland who ensured that she received medical care when Tedla was seriously ill. Yet even Tedla joins another child in pelting this same bland with mud balls and calling it names. A good deal of the children's aggression toward blands seems to be inspired by fear. Fear of their coming change, fear that they might end up a bland, fear of caring for someone who is--not human. The children all "know" that blands are dull, stupid and unable to feel any real emotion. We see the strength of their conditioning in the woeful self-image Tedla has, even after twelve years away from Gammadis. She remains convinced that she is stupid, subhuman and incapable of love (and I found this a bit overdone). There are early hints that "becoming human" on Gammadis may not be a question of physiology and may not be random. When, at the coming-of-age process (hardly a ceremony), Tedla is assigned the tag that will identify her as a bland, one clerk remarks "I thought the rate was going down" and another replies, "Not today it isn't". As we see more of Gammadis society, we realize that the existence of an underclass is an economic necessity. To have a large number of people whose labour is available for only the cost of feeding and housing them badly, is to enable the rest of Gammadis society to live very well indeed. There is some very interesting world-building in the novel. Gammadis is a beautiful world but people live underground and describe their guilty past when they exploited and polluted their planet. There is no record of their being part of a human diaspora that has colonized so many worlds, yet they are clearly human, although they may have taken a somewhat different evolutionary path. Gammadis is to all intents and purposes a slave-owning society. Gilman draws a picture of a society declining in numbers, one with all the nervousness that goes with knowing there are large numbers of blands who might possibly (despite their proclaimed apathy and stupidity) become disaffected with their lot. The consequence, of course, is harsh treatment and immediate violent suppression of anything that even looks like disobedience. Capella, on the other hand, has been terraformed and its business, and major export, is information. Scholars find they have a thin time of it unless they join one of the large information houses who then, of course, have the rights to all their work. Very little information is available for free: the information houses control access effectively even though one would expect in a society dedicated to information, that the media (the nets) would be as skilled as any in digging out facts. Gilman, on Gammadis, sets up a society based on the proposition that to be human is to have gender. And if you are neuter, you are not human, and since you are not human, there is no need to treat you humanely. It is clear that Gammadis society has not really changed from its exploitative past: they merely take much better care of their planet now than of their blands. Capella is probably as exploitative a society but there is still room for the intelligent and principled to make their way. But it is tough and it is risky. Things the novel makes me wonder about: 1. What would a person be like with no gender for the first twelve years of its life and then a rapid maturation process as either a man or a woman? 2. What does it mean to be "halfway human"? Is one not born human? Does one achieve humanity? Or, is humanity thrust upon one? Joslyn Grassby --------------2C2276878A5EC78800A09FE6-- ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 3 May 1998 22:11:50 -0700 Reply-To: ltimmel@halcyon.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "L. Timmel Duchamp" Subject: Re: Joanna Russ : WHAT ARE WE FIGHTING FOR? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Anthea wrote: > > > Would someone PLEASE let me know the instant the book is published! We > normally use Amazon.com, but haven't found it that effective of late. > So I'm going to get someone in our New York office to buy it and ship > it over by DHL courier. With any luck I should have it two days (at > the most) after it appears in the bookstores. > It appeared in Seattle bookstores a couple of weeks ago. (I'm reading it now.) Publication date is March, 1998. From St. Martin's Press. Timmi Duchamp ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 May 1998 11:58:46 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Cindy Smith Subject: Re: Angels and Wings Comments: To: ldqt79a@prodigy.com >From: MX%"LDQT79A@prodigy.com" " DAVID CHRISTENSON" 4-MAY-1998 11:07:00.09 >To: MX%"cms@dragon.com" >Subj: Re: [*FSFFU*] Angels and Wings > >An off-list inquiry: > >> The word "feet" is a euphemism in Hebrew for the male sexual >> organ. Thus, "to bathe your feet" means to engage in sexual >intercourse and >> "to cover your feet" means to urinate. > >Sooo.... Are you telling me that when Mary Magdalene "bathed the feet" >of Jesus, they were - you know - "bathing his feet," as it were? Yikes! Actually, yes, the passage in Luke 7:36-50 contains very sexual imagery. When the woman "bathes his feet with her tears," this is an example of foreplay. This is the precise reason why the Pharisee is shocked and says, "If this man were a prophet, he would know who and what sort of woman this is who is touching him, that she is a sinner" (7:39). Jesus then forgives the woman for behaving sexually towards him by saying that she loves much and "the one to whom little is forgiven, loves little" (v 47). Incidentally, there's no indication that this is Mary Magdalene; it's an unknown woman. Also, the incident is completely different from the Anointing at Bethany in which a woman (Mary, Martha's sister, I believe) anoints Jesus's feet with costly nard in preparation for his burial. There are feminist theologians who theorize that the reason why Mary Magdalene is frequently equated with the sinful woman or portrayed as a reformed prostitute (neither of which is true) is probably because men fear a woman who holds power and Mary Magdalene held a position of power as one of Jesus's close disciples and a woman of authority in the early Christian Church after the death and resurrection of Jesus. Several passages in the New Testament restrict the power and authority of women, and this is a strong indication that many women held positions of power and authority in the early Christian church. As Christianity became less a radical movement and more a conventional religion, women lost power and editorial notes were inserted into New Testament texts which restricted the power and authority of women. As a rule, if something is prohibited, it usually means the practice being prohibited was a problem, and if a problem then common. >-- >David Christenson - ldqt79a@prodigy.com >-- >David Christenson - ldqt79a@prodigy.com >"Never eat more than you can lift." - Miss Piggy Cindy Smith Spawn of a Jewish Carpenter GO AGAINST THE FLOW! \\ _\\\_ _///_ // >IXOYE=('> <`)= _<< A Real Live Catholic in Georgia cms@dragon.com // /// \\\ \\ Delay not your conversion to the LORD, Put it not off from day to day Ecclesiasticus/Ben Sira 5:8 Read the mailing list Bible@dragon.com Read the mailing list Literature@dragon.com Read the mailing list nt-trans@dragon.com (Greek New Testament) Read the mailing list ot-trans@dragon.com (Hebrew Old Testament) ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 May 1998 12:17:55 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Allen Briggs Subject: Re: Angels and Wings Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Although I think it's technically in the Mystery genre (and thus not quite on topic, although I think it fits into SF somewhat and is at the least more feminist than many...), I much enjoyed reading Katherine Neville's _The Magic Circle_. It has a bit of retelling of Jesus's last days and some correspondance between Joseph of A. and Mary Magdalene. It was a new take on it to me, but I'm rather ignorant on this topic... More on topic, has anyone read _Acorna_ by McCaffery and (blast, can't recall at the moment)? I'm curious what others might have thought about it from a feminist perspective... -allen -- Allen Briggs - briggs@ninthwonder.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 May 1998 13:54:57 EDT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Lurima Subject: Re: Connie Willis: Not To Mention The Dog Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit The Writer's Digest Book Club has recently offered a book that tells you when many terms first came into general usage. (There is the OED, but I don't think I can read that small print any more even with the magnifying glass!) Barbara ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 May 1998 14:08:28 EDT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian l